General Discussion

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts) Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:15 PM Jan 2014

Would you support a constitutional amendment that says that "money is not speech"?

Such an amendment would give Congress the right to ban or regulate any kind of speech that involves spending money. This amendment would specify that the current First Amendment only applies to speech that does not involve spending money (for example, citizens making speeches in town squares).

11 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Yes. I would support a constititutional amendment that says that "money is not speech".
	8 (73%)
	No. I would not support a constitutional amendment that says that "money is not speech".
	3 (27%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would you support a constitutional amendment that says that "money is not speech"? (Original Post) Nye Bevan Jan 2014 OP

Try asking Jamaal510 Jan 2014 #1

No. Donating to Amnesty International to speak for me should be a protected activity cthulu2016 Jan 2014 #2

I would support an amendment that provides for public financing of elections. NuclearDem Jan 2014 #3

Not as you word it in the body of your post, I'm afraid. Lizzie Poppet Jan 2014 #4

More info at roody Jan 2014 #5

Get rid of Citizens United. panader0 Jan 2014 #6

i think there is a way to restrict unlimited campaign spending in amendment Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2014 #7

see movetoamend.org dballance Jan 2014 #8

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)

1. Try asking

Reply to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:16 PM

Jan 2014

this question somewhere like Yahoo Answers, and see what they say, too.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

2. No. Donating to Amnesty International to speak for me should be a protected activity

Reply to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:18 PM

Jan 2014

You'll need to fine tune this even further.

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)

3. I would support an amendment that provides for public financing of elections.

Reply to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:24 PM

Jan 2014

And stricter rules on 501(c)4's.

If the rich want to pay for elections, then they can suffer a tax raise that provides a public money pool for candidates.

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)

4. Not as you word it in the body of your post, I'm afraid.

Reply to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 05:37 PM

Jan 2014

That's a terrible construction: "any kind of speech that involves spending money." That could easily be interpreted as virtually any speech, really. I prefer something much more specifically-worded to exempt campaign contributions and the like from First Amendment protection.

No way in hell the Framers envisioned $ = speech. In fact, I don't doubt that a good few of them would have been happy to show the business end of a musket to anyone implementing institutionalized bribery.